NDP Candidate Chosen in Mount Royal

I expect more than 120 New Democrats gathered in Mount Royal back in 1963 and 1965:

1963:

Lib Alan MacNaughton 37,648 70.35%

NDP Charles Taylor 8,855 16.55%

1965:

Lib Pierre-Eliott Trudeau 28,064 55.65%

NDP Charles Taylor 14,929 29.60%

Cotler is 70. Is he really going to keep running forever?

Cotler has only been an MP since 1999.  I suspect this next term will be his last, but why are you bringing up his age?

By the way, Jack Layton's grandfather had a connection to Mount Royal.

He was executive secretary of the Montreal Association for the Blind. (His father was a blind activist who led a campaign for disability pensions in the 1930s.)

Elected MNA for Montréal Saint-Georges in 1936 for the Union Nationale. Sworn in as a Minister without portfolio August 26, 1936. He supported extending the vote to women, which was defeated 49 to 23. Left the Union Nationale Oct. 5, 1939 because it opposed conscription. Independent candidate in Westmount Saint-Georges in 1939, defeated. Independent Conservative candidate in Montréal Mont-Royal in 1945 federal election, defeated.

Yeah, good thing Mulcair joined in on that pile-on against Libby Davies.

And good thing the NDP has a candidate boasting about his support for an apartheid state.  I wonder, would Jack Layton have spoke at the nomination of a candidate in the 1980s who boasted about being a "lifelong supporter of South Africa"?

I was very involved in a Trudeau-era (his riding) NDP campaign in Mt Royal, and believe me, after then Opposition leader Joe Clark proposed the move of the Cdn embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, that was the only issue we were asked about at Cote des Neiges mall or anywhere .... PQ, language and the national economy, be damned

btw, 150 people at a meeting would have looked darn good: in those years there were about 6 McGill students and an aged corps of Jewish Bund members supporting NDP in the whole riding

For the record (not that I am asking for any action), that is an offensive comment.

I think apartheid is offensive.

Personally, I find apartheid infinitely more offensive than a mention that someone is supporting an apartheid state.

How is this comment possibly offensive?  Lets go slow here:

Fact:  Israel is an apartheid state.

Fact:  The first words quoted in this post were "As a lifelong supporter of Israel..."

Fact:  The person in question is an NDP candidate.

Fact:  Jack Layton spoke at his nomination

Ergo, we have an NDP candidate boasting about his support for an apartheid state while Jack Layton is speaking at his nomination.

What could be possibly offensive about my statement?  Is it because the candidate wears and orange tie that it is offensive?  If I said that Irwin Cotler and Jason Kenney support an apartheid state and often boast about it, and have the full support of their party leaderships, would that be an offensive comment - because I'm sure it is one that has been made many times on babble.

Here we do again - I think we should have a thread specifically devoted to a debate on what topic tends to degenerate the most rapidly into ad hominem insults and "Certs is a candymint, NO Certs is a breathmint" type arguments. Is it anything to do with the middle east or anything to do with the gun registry?

I'm overjoyed that a wonderful candidate like Jeff Itcush is running for the NDP in Mount Royal - he is a perfect fit for the riding.

Have there been any ad hominem insults in this thread?

I reiterated that Itcush supports an apartheid state (which is true)

Wilf said that that was offensive (which I can't see how, but even if it is bullshit, it's not an ad hominem)

Stock, I'm glad you think that candidates who boast about their support for apartheid states are "wonderful"

I personally find your description of Israel to be an ad hominem insult that is specifically designed to provoke a furor and put fuel on the fire and you want nothing more than to start a dehumanizing flame-war - nothing more. But rather than complaining, i will take the high road secure in the knowledge that your views are shared by only a tiny minority of fringe extremists.

Channelling Cheri DiNovo much?  Or perhaps Cotler or Kenney?

Many people agree that Israel is an apartheid state.  I've been to Israel/Palestine and what I saw was perfectly congruent with the definitions of apartheid.  Many people I talked to - both Israeli and Palestinian - agreed.  I'm sure all the folks who work their asses off to bring Israeli Apartheid Week to 60 cities around the world are more than just a "tiny minority of fringe extremists".  I guess Desmond Tutu, Naomi Klein, Judy Rebick, etc. are all just "fringe extremists" to you.

I find your denial of Israel's apartheid and smears against good activists and organizers working to end that system of oppression to be sickening and not babble material, but I'll just take the high road knowing that I'm part of a movement for peace and justice in Palestine/Israel which is democratic, progressive, and that one day the apartheid wall will fall and history will absolve us.

Mount Royal riding in 2006 had income levels 94% of the average levels of Metropolitan Montreal, and was made up as follows:

50% non-immigrants

47% immigrants

3% non-permanent residents

of which 15% are non-citizens and have no vote.

32% have English mother tongue

21% French mother tongue

1% English and French mother tongue

46% other mother tongue

It had the following religious characteristics in 2001:

36% Jewish

29% Catholic

8% no religious affiliation

7% Protestant

6% Muslim

5% Christian Orthodox

4% Hindu

3% Buddhist

2% Other (including Jedi Knights, I suppose)

In 2006 it contained the following visible minorities:

9% Filipino

6% South Asian

6% Black

3% Chinese

10% other

A pretty diverse riding, but the Jews are the largest group. The riding has had two Jewish MPs since 1984. Hardly surprising that the NDP would have a Jewish candidate.

(It might also be noted that the riding includes the town of Hampstead which was 74% Jewish in 2001, and Cote-Saint-Luc which was 69% Jewish.)

No one is upset that the NDP has a Jewish candidate.  I simply pointed out that the NDP is running a candidate who boasts about being a lifelong supporter of an apartheid state.

Except for the fact that he is very unlikely to win the riding.

The more votes he gets the better - every extra vote the NDP gets thanks to having Itcush as the candidate means an extra $2/year.

Besides who knows what the next redistribution might do to Outremont - they might move the boundaries to the west and take in some areas of Snowdon that are now in Mount Royal so its never to early for the NDP to start to prime the pump!

It will be interesting to see how many votes he gets, yes, and to see how the NDP does in relation to the Conservatives.  Can the NDP beat the Conservatives the way they did in Westmount in 2008?

I think the question I would ask as a political analyst is, what is the NDP's purpose in running in all these Liberal strongholds?  I assume it isn't because they think they can win these ridings (the results in Westmount demonstrated that in 2008).  I think the strategy may be one of psychological tactics in political battle - sending a message by going right into the heart of the rival's stronghold.  It sends a message to the opposing party that they are here to stay and to its own troops that they have the confidence to take on the battle ahead.

Just realized this was discussed here.

From the Canadian Jewish News article linked above:

I actively work towards having the NDP adopt a non-negotiable party position which supports the rights of the Palestinian people, their right of return, and an end to the Israeli occupation. I work towards a party position guided by international law and UN resolutions that upholds the equal worth and dignity of all people, one that affirms democratic rights and opposes apartheid structures.

Well hopefully, he and Mulclair enjoy their influence in the peanut gallery after the next election, good seats to shout down excellent MPs like Libby for speaking up against the apartheid state they feel so loyal towards.

Er, by that measure, what's the purpose of *any* party with a losing record in running in all these Liberal strongholds?  Ditto with Green, the Bloc, even the Tories (despite their impressive-for-Montreal finish last time)

Libby Davies is on record as supporting Israel's right to exist - I guess she should also be burned in effigy as a supporter of "apartheid" (sic.)?

Who are you talking to, Stockholm?

Other than Outremont, Westmount and Duceppe's own riding, the NDP's best Montreal riding in 2008 was Rosemont-La-Petite-Patrie: 16.3%. But in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine it got 15.2%. Why not run strong campaigns in both?

Why the (sic.)?  "Apartheid" is the correct spelling for the political situation in Israel/Palestine.

I suspect that many supporters of Fred Rose - the only Communist MP ever elected in Canada - might have ended up voting NDP in Mount Royal in the 60s (just as many supporters of David Lewis in York South would have supported J.B. Salsberg in the 1930s and 1940s).

Mount Royal is 24% Jewish according to the 2006 census.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/079/

Who cares? Geeze.

I doubt that, given the hate campaign the Communists ran against David Lewis in the Cartier byelection-the campaign in which they put out posters that showed Lewis wearing a Nazi uniform(this, from the party that cheered for and defended the Pact).

OK. I'll ask this, since nobody else has actually done so:

Has this Ictush fellow insisted that "support for Israel" means that no criticism of Israeli security policies or Israeli treatment of Palestinians is tolerable?

Has he been involved in actually trying to silence debate on the I/P issue?

Or does he simply believe that the State of Israel, in some form, has a right to continue existing?

It's important to distinguish whether the guy takes a Likud/Beitenyu position or a Meretz/Yachad position.

And, for the record, is there any reason why, if nothing else, that Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the Territories should NOT be considered apartheid?

And can the people who've taken a pro-Israel position in this thread PLEASE accept that opposition to nominating a candidate who identifies as Zionist does NOT equate to opposition to nominating a candidate who simply happens to be Jewish?  Nobody here was complaining about Ictush being Jewish, for G-d's sake.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here - whoever implied that in the first place?

What I do object to is the implication that anyone who thinks Israel should exist is a supporter of apartheid. If that is the case, then I guess all 308 MPs (including Libby Davies), all candidates for public office in Canada, all political parties in Europe, as well as Mahmoud Abbas support apartheid.

As Jeff Burch pointed out - we know nothing about what exactly Jeff Itcush's exact view are on every facet of the Middle East conflict. I think its unfair for people to start projecting views on to him that we know nothing about. So far, all we know is he "supports Israel" - and so does Libby Davies. What's not to like?

But, you do accept Stock, that the question about his unknown as yet position on how exactly his "Life long support" of Israel manifests itself, is a valid question?

Oh, and about that $2/vote thing ... I don't see that as a valid reason to gloss over a candidates stance on the issues, otherwise maybe the NDP should run a climate-change-denier in Calgary- sure, even a climate change denier NDP candidate would not likely win there, but the extra $2 wouldn't hurt would it?

If you think its such an important question, why don't you write to him? Let us know if he passes your "purity test".

I have always opposed Israel being liquidated and its people massacred. I guess that makes me a "life long supporter of Israel" as well. You could call me a "life long supporter of Palestine" as well since i also have always supported the creation of a palestinian state.

As for the $2/vote issue - my point had nothing to do with Jeff Itcush's views on the Middle East. I responding to a post questioning why the NDP would bother to campaign actively in Mount Royal at all - given that it is widely viewed as an unwinnable seat and i was simply pointing out that there is something to be gained from boosting the NDP popular vote in all ridings - even if it doesn't result in a win. In reading the long article about Jeff Itcush's background it was clear to me that he is an impressive guy with a very strong resume and an interesting biography and who seems to have been very involved in the community. That makes him a good fit for the riding.

The fact that he teaches history at a Jewish parochial school also suggests to me that he could express a more "Meretz" as opposed to "likud" view on Israeli policies and not be accused of being an anti-semite!

I concur with Stockholm when he says:

That`s all well and fine but anyone with an elementary understanding of the situation knows that Israel has continued at full pace to build settlements throughout the proposed Palestinian state making it nothing more than a bunch of bantusans.  Israel`s existential question is its own doing and a direct result of its settlement policies.  You can`t be a supporter of a Palestinian state and support what Israel has done for the last four decades.  Israeli apartheid is the predictable result of Israel`s ongoing occupation of Palestine which has lasted longer than some of us have been alive.  People can wax nostalgic about political realities that existed in the 1960s but they`re completely out of touch and they`re lending cover for the apartheid regime that exists now.  Jewish Israelis of course have the right to exist but their racist settler state does not and either it gets increasingly ugly and brutal(a very observable trend we`ve all witnessed) in its occupation or it`s transformed into a polity that treats all of its citizens equally regardless of ethnicity.

As the Canadian Jewish News article points out, NDP candidate Itcush is a director of the Canadian Jewish Congress.  According to the Government of Canada registry of lobbyists, the Canadian Jewish Congress is a registered lobby group which operates under the direction of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, whose website states that its mandate includes directing strategies for increasing support for Israel.  In effect, the NDP has appointed as a candidate the director of a group which lobbies on behalf of a foreign state which is generaly viewed to be an Apartheid State.  Obviously this appointment is an affront to anyone who believes that the NDP should respect human equality and should oppose all forms of discrimination.  Criticism of this appointment is very valid, just as criticism of the NDP if they had apponted as candidate a director of a group which lobbys on behalf of the defence industry or the oil industry would be.  Indeed shame on the NDP for apponting as candidate a director of a lobby group for an Apartheid state.

I think it's very clear what "supporting Israel" means in this context, and it is not in the euphemistic way Stockholm would have us believe. Keywords: moderated, Mulcair, unabashedly.

"purity test"? You mean the same "purity test" Dana Larsen, Kirk Tousaw, Micheline Montreuil and Francis Chartrand had to pass? Sure, why not, let's ask the NDP to release the details of their official "purity test" and see if there is anything in it that might apply in this case.

Jeff Itcush sounds like an excellent candidate.  Contrary to the claims to some here there are a lot of progressive Jews, even if they don't pass the anti-Israel purity test.  It's a good opportunity to make inroads in the Montreal Jewish community - even left-leaning Jews there have voted Liberal for years because there's never been a serious NDP run there.

Talk about ad hominem attacks ...

No one here has called for Israel to be liquidated and it's citizens massacred nor claimed there aren't progressive Jews.  I am opposed to the NDP running a candidate who is "unabashedly supporting Israel," and has done so "all [his] life," despite Israel's continuing atrocities, including the continued seige of Gaza.

But, of course, you know that.

"anti-Israel purity test"? Care to elaborate?

I have a major problem with the phrase "Israel has the right to exist." Really? Where did that right come from? Why does Israel have a "right to exist?" Does Canada have a "right to exist?"

The discussion about whether or not Israel (or any other country, for that matter) has a "right to exist" goes to the fundamentals of the nation state itself. Which is fine in and of itself, but really does not advance discussion on matters within the Middle East.

Speaking of Charles Taylor...!

I met him this morning when he came to the Lunenburg Post Office to mail a letter.

His daughter is a physician here in Lunenburg.

We had an interesting chat, and seemed pleasantly surprised that someone would recognize him so far from Montreal.

I told him that I was a Jack Layton supporter since the Leadership Convention in 2003, whom I think of as a man of the people.

He also had a laugh when I told him why I think Michael Ignatieff will never become Prime Minister...

When Ignatieff hears the William Tell Overture, he thinks of Rossini.  When average Canadians hear it, then think of the Lone Ranger!

Making Charles Taylor laugh!  A high-light of my day!

I audited some Taylor courses, and several of his daughters (5-6 kids, I think) went to McGill in my '70s era;  one teaches in PoliSci at York or UofT;

he certainly raised the level of debate -- can you imagine a '60s Trudeau-Charles Taylor debate ??

 -- Ignatieff, eat your heart out: real issues!

Getting back more to the main topic of this thread, how do people feel the NDP will do in Mount Royal in the next election?  How far do you think it will climb up the standings?  Eg.  how will the NDP finish in relation to the Conservatives?

Look: when all is said and done, under the present circumstances, anything higher than 3rd for the NDP would be a shocker--all the more so if the "Asper Tory" element holds reasonably steady.  Not implausible; but a shocker all the same.

Emphasis on "not implausible".

If this dude is the NDP candidate, I really don't give a rat's ass.   I mean...what's the difference between him and Cotler?

Now if the NDP had nominated a candidate who was active in an organization like Independent Jewish Voices, then I'd be interested.

Israel is an apartheid state.   I've been there, seen it in action and there's no doubt about it in my mind.

One more thought.

Last spring I heard a South African give a talk where he explained one big difference between South African and Israeli apartheid.

He said that the South African military never used jet fighter planes to bomb civilian areas in the townships during the apartheid era...but Israel does use jet fighter planes to bomb civilians in the occupied territories.

1. Incumbent (with current or new candidates)
2. Winnable Seats
3. Competitive Seats
4. Ridings with some profile
5. Respectable losers
6. Pathetic losers

I think that Mount Royal is either #4 or #5.  In other words a riding fairly low on the radar.  Any discussion of the candidate must also include the point that he has almost zilch chance of being an MP.

Coming from Richmond I have seen that it has become increasingly hard to find candidates willing to put their name forward when victory is almost impossible. 

You sound like some of the pro-Israel fanatics I meet who think that the extent to which a Canadian politician is pro-Israel is the one and only issue of any consequence. Maybe Itcush has the same view son the Middle East as Cotler and maybe he doesn't - but there are about a thousand other political issues out there where the NDP and Liberals do have different views and where I expect that a social democrat like Itcush from an CCF/NDP family in Saskatchewan has far more progressive views than a rightwing Liberal like Cotler. But then again if you think that ISRAEL ISALL THAT MATTERS - none of that is of any consequence!

I'm not sure if having Itcush run really means much in terms of the NDP's position on Israel...though I do find it interesting that Jack Layton actually attended his nomination and that this nomination was considered newsworthy by the Canadian Jewish News.

definitely a 5 today, and late 1970s vs candidate Trudeau, a 6; 

Mount Royal includes a huge suburban end of riding with well-off burghers on tailored streets in a planned community, w. high incomes galore;

no wonder (distant) 3rd place is an NDP triumph there ! N.D.G. way more sociologically approachable ...

 bTW,

According to the Canada 2006 Census [55]

• Racial groups: 50.7% Arab, 28.4% White, 9.2% Filipino, 6.2% South Asian, 5.5% Black

.......................

 Q.: while the riding has changed ethnically along Cote des Neiges and Jean Talon, I highly doubt this information, or that a strong supporter of Israel would be the sitting MP and idem the NDP nominee with those census figures...

-- anybody??

It's definitely an error.  The riding is pluarlity Jewish.

There is some potentially "fertile ground" for the NDP in the Snowdon part of Mount Royal which border Outremont and whihc is very multicultural and working class. As I mentioned earlier - its not inconceivable that a future redistribution of electoral boundaries could move some of that territory into Outremont - in which case it would be good to start tilling the soil!

It's not all that matters but it says something fundamental about your politics if you've been 'an unabashed' supporter of an apartheid settler state your whole life. Who cares if you're a self proclaimed Social Democrat or your grandma was in the CCF? That's the typical defense of all the 'left' apologists for the atrocities of the last ten years including Glavin, Hitchens and Blair. "Look at my pedigree, my pedigree, I'm leftwing when it comes to everything except killing Arabs and stealing their land and resources. That's an issue only the fringe-left cares about..."

I agree with radiorahim. Especially when it comes to Mulclair and Cauchon, except I'd go further and say it'd be better if Cauchon won. He's on the progressive wing of the Liberal party whereas Mulclair has made it pretty clear where he stands and how quickly he'd slip the knife into the back of the most progressive NDP MP in Parliament.

The classic argument of the "love me, love me, love me I'm a liberal" types that Phil Ochs sang about in the 1960's.

There's these crazy folks on the one side...and these crazy folks on the other side...but all of us nice reasonable "respectable" folks in the middle.  

The rights of the Palestinians are "icky poo"...don't wanna deal with that...just like alot of "respectable" types didn't want to deal with "controversial" issues like LGBT rights, abortion rights, women's rights, the War Measures Act and locking up Japanese Canadians during the second world war.

Much as you might like alot of us to STFU on Palestine Stockholm.   I ain't gonna STFU.  Deal with it.

If you don't like Jeff Itcush's position on the Middle East (or at leats you don't THINK you like since we really don't know much about what his views are) - then I guess you wouldn't like ANYONE's views in the parliament of Canada since as far as i know all 308 MPs from all parties are "pro-Israel" to some extent (given that acknowledging that Israel should exist can be contrued as making a person a "supporter of Israel"). Libby Davies is a great friend of Israel, she always reiterates her support for Israel's existence within secure borders and I'm happy to see that. I'm also happy to see her criticize some of the excesses of the current Israeli government - and so it should be.

Sorry Stockholm. Terminology along the lines of being "pro-Israel" implies blind support and justification for the actions of the Israeli government. The media and the Israeli lobby have hammered home this frame. The fact that anyone who dares criticise the actions of the government has to qualify that statement that they don't hate the state of Israel or Jews or else get viciously attacked in the media proves this.

Know what the difference is between Davies and Itcush? Davies does not generally make statements about how she supports Israel. It's not mere semantics, it's fundamental.

A couple of elections ago we had two different candidates in Richmond.  Itrath Said ran against John Cummins and Dale Jackaman ran against Raymond Chan.  Itrath is a leading figure in Vancouver's middle east and peace movements.  She knows the issues inside out.  Dale on the other hand advanced the standard "the truth is somewhere in the middle" crap that he learned during his tour of duty with the UN.   In the end though their views had limited importance.  Dale's views never really saw the light of day except I think at the Jewish Society all-candidates meeting (going by memory).  Itrath did represent the party as a regional spokesperson and got some coverage, but even then it wasn't anything grand. 

Marginal canddates are so far down the food chain, that they deserve only minimal attention.

Dale on the other hand advanced the standard "the truth is somewhere in the middle" crap that he learned during his tour of duty with the UN.  

never heard of the guy before, but he sounds OK to me:

Party: New Democratic Party of Canada

Birthdate: June 2, 1956

Age: 52

Birthplace: Montreal

Marital Status: Married

Children: One daughter

Career Background: One of the founders and past executive director of British Columbia's largest anti-tobacco activist and lobby group, Airspace Action on Smoking and Health. Served as information technology director and a senior manager at BC Research Inc. Served three tours of duty in the Middle East with the Canadian Armed Forces Signal Corps.

Electoral History

Provincial: Defeated in Richmond Centre in 2005

Federal: Defeated in this riding in 2004

"Terminology along the lines of being "pro-Israel" implies blind support and justification for the actions of the Israeli government."

I'm sure that columnists at Ha'aretz and members of the Knesset from the lefftwing Meretz party would call themselves "pro-Israel" as well in that they are Israeli - but that doesn't seem to prevent any of them from being highly, highly critical of Israeli government policies.

So I guess if someone described themselves as pro-Hamas, you wouldn't automatically assume that they support all of Hamas's positions?

Cotler is not a social democrat, but I don't know if I'd call him a "rightwing Liberal."  He was pretty progressive as Justice Minister.

Besides identifying as a "Zionist" in some form - which is to be expected from someone who teaches at a Jewish parochial school - we know nothing about Itcush's views on Israel. 

"So I guess if someone described themselves as pro-Hamas, you wouldn't automatically assume that they support all of Hamas's positions?"

Hamas is not a country. Its a political party/militia. Saying you are pro-Hamas can be juxtaposed with being "pro-Israeli Beitenu or Pro-Likud".

Dale is a great guy, he does great work for the community and has carried the flag for the NDP on a number of occasions.  He is just wrong on Middle East policy.  And as a unelectable candidate that is not really important.

So one can't be a supporter of Hamas while criticizing some of it's positions?

There is a difference between choosing to support one political party/militia out of many and expressing support for the existence of a nation that contains a plethora of parties and opinions.

So I can't support the NDP while disagreeing with some of it's positions?  Or is that only to Hamas that your comment applies.

At any rate, there are lots of countries in the world.  Couldn't you just move to a country that you like and support them?

This is a ridiculous argument...Israel is a country and Hamas is a political party/militia/vigilante group. Let me make it simple for you:

I support Israel. I support Palestine

I do NOT support Hamas and i do NOT support the Jewish Defence League

Calm down Stockholm, the loyalty oath isn't until later on.  This was just in regards to an earlier quote that normally saying that a person is "pro-" this or that side, usually means that they uncritically support that particular side, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

Personally, I often find the issue of saying that one support's one side a bit childish.  As if one party represents good and lightness, and the other is evil.  I think it is more mature to say that one supports certain principles.  For example, the right not to be punished collectively, or the right to not have your home or neighbourhood bulldozed. Little things like that.  It is a more useful device, as it allows one to clear out the clutter of relative atrocities that are inevitably committed by either side and focus on the fundamentals which, in this case, is that Israel is occupying some land that it shouldn't.  Or, we can just say "I supprt Israel and Palestine, and Turkey, and America" and go on singing "This Land is Your Land".

But alas, thread drift.  Go NDP Candidate in Mount Royal.

We don't know Itcush's position on the Israel/Palestinian issue, that's true, but if someone makes an effort to explicitly state their "life long support" of Israel, given the contentiousness of that issue, then I think it's a fair question to ask as to what specifically his "life long support" actually means in terms of the Israel/Palestinian situation.

Some NDPers actually believe that this issue is a "make or break" issue when it comes to supporting a person as an NDP candidate, and should be allowed to present their views on such a candidate.

I support the existence of Israel (not necessarily as a "right", at least no more or less than any other nation has a "right to exist",)  and I also support Palestinians right not be be discriminated against, bombed, shot at, tortured, maimed, and killed, by Israeli settlers and the IDF, but I would not consider it out of bounds to be questioned on specifics of my positions if I were running for office.

Yes, it was under Cotler that same-sex marriage was passed.

There isn't anything particularly left/right about gayness or SSM. SSM is an issue of fundamental rights.

Is it a stretch to suggest we don't even need to ask?

It seems unfair to condemn someone before hearing them out. Most prairie socialists I know are right on. Sooner or later Itcush will make his positions vis a vis Israel clearer. At that point people can critique his positions.

If the NDP had a Palestinian candidate who proclaimed that they are a "lifelong supporter of Palestine", it wouldn't be right to say that they support suicide bombing.

Not sure what you're asking here.

I certainly believe that asking the question is very valid.

I'm not sure that taking for granted that his "life long support of Israel" means he supports Israel Apartheid is totally fair ... BUT ... I see no big issue with being very suspicious about what "life long support of Israel" really means, and if a clearer explanation is not forthcoming in a reasonable time frame, then "playing it safe" and assuming it means "the worst case" becomes reasonable.

Personally at this time I am very suspicious, leaning towards "the worst case" given his other associations .. but I'm willing to hear him explain his stance when he is willing to give it ... for now.

I was leaning in that direction, perhaps more strongly than you were.

Whether it should be a left/right issue or not, the fact remains that it is predominantly Liberals/left of centre parties that support it, and Conservative/right of centre parties that oppose it.  This pattern occurs not only in Canada but in other countries as well.  Just look at the way the parties have voted on this - the right-wingers voted against it.

I disagree entirely. Indeed, you are talking about social conservatives, not all people on the right are social conservatives, even the extreme right wingnuts such as George Smitherman are not at all opposed. Paul Martin, another extreme rightist and capitalist privateer, revealed that he was morally opposed, however, to his credit he also agreed that it was an issue of rights and legality, and in way on constitutional grounds he had to support it.

Meanwhile of course Bev Desjardin from the NDP was opposed.

Just as the NDP would not run a candidate who was anti-abortion, I work towards a party that does not run candidates who support apartheid.

All violence flows from the occupation.  As long as the institutionalized violence of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza continues, resistance to occupation will continue, which may include violence.

All violence flows from Hamas led terrorism.  As long as the institutionalized violence of Hamas's occupation of Gaza continues, resistance to terrorism will continue, which may include violence.

In the last election all 308 NDP candidates accepted and supported the NDP platform which calls for a two state solution in the Middle East and supports the existence of Israel within secure borders and free from terrorist attack - you can call that "supporting apartheid" if you want and you can maybe find a few members of the Flat Earth Society who agree with you. You may have to wait a few centuries before you get all 308 NDP candidates opposing the existence of Israel. Maybe you should simply form a new party called the "Anti-Israel Party" and see how many votes it gets.

Yeah, but it doesn't recognize the right of Palestinian to be free of occupation. In fact, after a couple of decades listening to this bullshit we all know that "secure borders" for Israel means occupation for Palestinians. And Jack Layton's wise words on Israeli security, were, as I remember it; "much of what is being done is necessary". But that is just reality continue on...

Israel is not the only country in the world that favours a certain religion over others.

Many Arab countries favour Islam at the expense of people of other religions. Are these countries also "apartheid" countries that must be opposed?

Should the NDP start up a campaign against all the countries in the world that don't treat all religions equally?

This crapola. Geeze I was trying to ignore this thread about this completely irrelevant go nowhere candidate in Mount Royal... but this is such crap.

There may be other countries that "favour" certain religions over another. A couple indeed even surpass Israel for pure religious bigotry. Saudi Arabia is a good example. However, in the name of that cause Saudi Arabia is not occupying a population of millions of persons and making them live under martial law because they are not Muslims.

Indeed, in the case of Gaza they are making 1.5 people live under permanent blockade in the largest open air prison in the world.

And, its not about "favouring" people of one religion over another. It is about the absolute exclusion of certain persons because they are not Jews, but because they are Arabs. Its called racism.

This debate has a chicken/egg quality about it.

On the one side we have:

If Israel was not occupying Palestinian territory, there would be peace.

And on the other side we have:

If Israel was not threatened by its neighbors, there would be no need for it to occupy the West Bank and Gaza.

So the solution would seem to be:

- for Israel to stop occupying Palestinian territory and for the Arab world to stop threatening Israel.

In other words - land for peace.

Hopefully the current talks between Israel and the Palestinians will bear fruit and in a year Abu Mazen, Bibi, and Hillary will win nobel prizes as Israel and Palestine establish the much sought after two-state solution.

And how is this different from what goes on in countries like Saudi Arabia?

Are Jews given equal rights in countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, ...?

Exactly brother. isreal is comparble to Saudi Arabia. Nice company you keep.

Nor did any of those countries expel 1 million odd jews out into the desert, and then impose occupation upon their decendants for generation after generation, deny them their rights to their lands, their basic human rights, their collective rights.

Anyway, you're the guy who tried to argue that Syria never recognized UN resolution 242, then backtracked and rewrote your post when you were corrected on this detail, in order to make it appear like you knew what you were talking about.

And I'll correct you on a point here, since you have decided to slander the Lebanese people in your insufferable efforts to defend the racist policies of Israel. Lebanon never expelled or encouraged any Jews to leave Lebanon. Nor was there any particular law that forbade Jewish or any other immigration to Lebanon.

Check your facts before you disseminate false history. False history for the purposes of defamation of "a people" according to Simon Wisenthal is racist slander.

Hamas's occupation of Gaza?  What colour is the sky in your world?  Seriously Stockholm, that comment shows a pathetic lack of respect for the intelligence of any readers here. It's almost as if you're saying: "they're too stupid to do a google search and find out that I'm wrong". 

Stockholm was parodying the post immediately above the one you quote, Kloch.

Back to the thread topic, I'm also one of those people who finds "lifelong support" for Israel to be a deal-breaker in an NDP candidate. 

It just shows a general lack of principle, that they are willing to sell out the party's basic ideas about racial equality and anti-militarism in order to get ahead in Canadian society.

"Get ahead???"

Are you suggesting the NDP is pandering to "money and the ethnic vote?"

Pandering to the elite neo-liberal world view, is more like it.

*sigh* What is happening with the NDP?

First they join the Reform Party to try kill the gun registry and now it seems they've been infiltrated by the Israel lobby.

I'm starting to question the NDP's whole point of existance.

I guess that means you have no one to vote for anywhere in canada since as far as I know all 308 people running for the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives or the Greens and all 75 BQ candidates all support Israel's existence and always have.

It is pretty sick, you are right.

There's no need to repeat yourself, I read the comments you made earlier in the thread.

I happen to see some wiggling room between "massacre all Israelis" and "Israel right or wrong".  There is actually a range of opinion on the matter among elected officials and in the NDP, isn't there?

Of course there is....and that's why you shouldn't jump to conclusions that just because someone is Jewish and feels some "affiliation" with Israel - that means "Israel right or wrong". For example, i have a close friend who is an ardent socialist, but who has lived off and on in Israel and has a strong attachment to the place. You might even call her a Zionist. She also supports Peace Now and the Meretz party, wants the occupation to end pronto and wants Jerusalem to be an international city under UN control. Her attitude towards Netanyahu is comparable to her contemptuous attitude towards Stephen Harper. I think that people like her should be welcomed with open arms as opposed to slamming a door in her face.  

The NDP does run candidates who are anti-abortion.  I can think of two elected NDP politicians, one provincially and one federally, just off the top of my head.

I think I speak for most here when I say that just because I'm an ardent critic of Israel who recognizes its Apartheid of the Palestinian people,doesn't make me an anti-semite or hostile to those of the jewish faith who feels an affiliation with Israel...No matter how hard fundamentalist Zioniosts would want the world to believe.

who ever said you were?

I've seen Itcush in action.

He would probably be a lot more interested in discussing First Nations issues and labor issues than the Middle East.  Some in his community would consider him too critical of Israel.  In some of the orgs that he's in he probably is a good counterbalance.  He usually tries to get whatever contituency that he's dealing with to see the other side. He's been very critical of settlement policies, etc.  I think he is connected with Peace Now and leans to the Merretz side of things.

He does support Israel, but he spends a lot of time trying get people to accept the creation of a Palestinian state.  I've seen him equally comfortable with Moslems as Jews.  The NDP probably sees him as pretty reputable.

Its kindof weird that his guts are being shredded on this thread.  He seems to bring people together,  I guess that won't be enough for some people on either side of the big argument.

Thank for you Elvi for telling us those things about Jeff Itcush. Now I hope that the people mindlessly leading a witch hunt against him will hang their heads in shame.

I went to see what was going on at his nomination.  He was taliking about youth employment and about Tamil refugees and the environment.    It was standing room only. The crowd was diverse, with a lot of young people signing volunteer lists and taking pictures.

I think the NDP needs this.  If I an manage it, I'll probably work for him.  I'd be intersted in people's opinions who've met him.  Just my two bits. 

I never duplicitously re-wrote a post. What I said was that Syria did not recognize Resolution 242 after the '67 war, when Israel and other Arab countries did. Syria recognized Resolution 242 after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 after their attempt to defeat Israel in a surprise attack failed.

The PLO didn't recognize Resolution 242 until 1993.

Why have so many Jews left Lebanon to the point that all the Jews in Lebanon today could probably fit into the auditorium at Mr. Itcush's high school?  If Lebanon is such a wonderful place for Jews, why have almost all Jewish Lebanese left Lebanon?

*Hangs head in exasperation*

I haven't gone through this thread with a fine-tooth comb, but I think you're the only one who has commented on Itcush's religion.  And you have affiliation in quotes. Where did Itcush say that? Here is what he said in the article posted at the top of the thread:

And as was pointed out at post #36:

Is this the Israel Itcush supports:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza-war-crimes-guardian ?

Or is it this: http://www.culturesofresistance.org/gaza-freedom-flotilla [110] ? 

When I read about some of the crimes unearthed that the Israeli army is alleged to have committed and then I read any line including 'suppport Israel',I naturally think about apartheid,oppression and genocide.

If this Guardian arcticle is true (I'm not doubting it much - if at all - because it's par for the course of other disgusting acts I have read involving the Israeli military) this is the story that should be front and centre on any and every news show and/or channel.

Instead we get headlines about drunk celebrities,arrested heiresses,cretinous politicos posing for pictures and nothing but talk about the economy (in the mess its in thanks to the very businesses governments keep throwing money at AND the bottom line is the bottom line---profits...There's no 'money' being lost,just profits)

Basically,this ends up boiled down to another thread about how the media doesn't report 'news' but just broadcasts ideas and spin to fit an agenda.

This is the type of thing presidents and prime ministers should be at the very least publicly condemning with a hard line intolerance.

Not to sound cynical but maybe if the Palestinians had money someone would stand up and scream.

Mind you,the rampant and venomous collection of open hatred and bigotry growing stronger against Islam in our wonderful Western world has probably made Islamophobia a populist movement.

Who else here has met Itcush?  I'd like to hear from them.

As for his relationship with the Congres juif quebecois, he has the right as somebody of his cultural community to try to influence one of the bodies recognized as his community's representative.  He can probably do that better from the inside.  I feel good knowing that somone like him can speak from that perspective. 

When the CCF had a eugenics policy, I'm glad some stayed on with the party until things changed.  Itcush has gone out on the limb, when it wasn't fashionable on issues like LGBT rights and will be a tough debater against Tories and Libs. 

At his nomination, the mayor of one of the municipalities in the riding showed-up along with representatives from a bunch of cultural communities.  How often does that happen with The NDP in Quebec.  I'd like to see him at a press conference sitting beside Samira Laouni.  He'd probably do it, knowing him.  I like.

BTW, for those who do not know, science has recently proved, the chicken came first.

Closing for length.